Election Day Could Make a Few Democrats Grouchy

By Mary Lu Carnevale

Katherine Rizzo is the “Inside Congress” editor for Congressional Quarterly and CQPolitics.com, supervising coverage of congressional leaders; she’s also a former writer for the Associated Press. Click here for Ms. Rizzo’s full bio.

If you sent a Republican to Congress two years ago, chances are you’re represented by a grouch.

It’s not that the Grand Old Party attracts malcontents to any greater degree than the Democrats, Libertarians or any other partisan niche. The ultra-optimistic Ronald Reagan, after all, is still the great Republican icon.

No, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are grumpy for good reason. Right now, they hold 199 seats. CQ Politics projects that 180 of those seats are likely to stay Republican or at least are leaning Republican, and 20 other seats are too close to call. Of those 20, all but six are seats now held by Republicans.Real Clear Politics handicaps the House contests with 22 too-close-to-call races, all but three of which are districts now represented by Republicans.

So the GOP has a lot more to lose in races that look like they could go either way.

But former presidential candidate Mitt Romney is reported to be heading to Houston next week to help raise money for Mr. Lampson’s Republican challenger, Pete Olson.

Real Clear Politics is giving Mr. Olson the edge, rating the race as leaning Republican, while CQ Politics calls it a tossup.

Two Try to Return to D.C. from N.H.

In New Hampshire, freshman Democrat Carol Shea-Porter might not survive to become a sophomore. Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, told my colleague Rachel Kapochunas that voters just don’t know Ms. Shea-Porter as well as they know Republican Jeb Bradley, a former congressman who’s trying to get back to Washington.

In Pennsylvania, incumbent Paul Kanjorski could fall to Republican Lou Barletta, the mayor who gained national attention with his illegal immigrant-focused ordinances.

In Kansas, Rep. Nancy Boyda is running for re-election for the first time, and is getting a run for her money from the state treasurer, Lynn Jenkins, who defeated ex-Rep. Jim Ryun in the primary. Ms. Jenkins is now taking full advantage of the mood of the moment by billing herself – accurately — as “Lynn Jenkins, CPA for Congress.”

A piece on the Kansas City Star Web sitemakes it sound like Ms. Jenkins pushed that point pretty aggressively in a debate this week, using her closing comments to ask voters, “Do you want to send a CPA to Washington or a drug saleswoman?”

Ms. Boyda actually is a chemist by training and a former pharmaceutical executive.

Still, the CPA credential proved an effective selling point for Ms. Jenkins in the primary. And it serves another useful purpose: If she wins, Ms. Jenkins would be the perfect Republican to demonstrate that a financial axiom also works in politics: Even in a down market, some people will make out just fine.

Chicago, IL (LifeNews.com) -- The Chicago-area nurse who exposed the practice of life-birth abortions that led to he bill Barack Obama repeatedly opposed in the Illinois legislature says Obama lied about his record during the final presidential debate. Jill Stanek says Obama again misrepresented his position and record before the American people.

As LifeNews.com reported, John McCain took Obama to task during the debate when the topic turned to abortion.

“Sen. Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, voted in the Judiciary Committee against a law that would provide immediate medical attention to a child born of a failed abortion. He voted against that,” McCain said.

Obama responded to the charge by repeating his claim that he voted against the bill because it would have undermined Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy.

However, as Stanek explains, Obama voted for an amendment to the bill to mitigate those concerns and subsequently voted against the legislation anyway.

Stanek said the bill, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, “simply stated all born alive babies became legally protected persons immediately upon birth, no matter what gestational age and no matter if unwanted abortion survivors.”

“Obama voted against this straightforward human rights legislation four times stating as the sole state senator speaking against it on the Senate floor in 2001 it would be ‘unconstitutional’ to declare very premature abortion survivors persons,” Stanek explained.

Obama also defended his votes against the anti-infanticide bill by claiming "there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment.”

Stanek also called that a “lie” saying “Illinois abortion law to this day only protects abortion survivors their abortionist deems fit to live.

“The potential for subjective assessments in these cases is clear to all but Obama. In fact, Obama opposed closing this loophole by voting against legislation to mandate a second doctor be present at deliveries of all live abortion survivors to independently assess their viability,” she said.

Obama not only voted against the bill to protect newborns who survive failed abortions but the Chicago-area nurse says he took a leadership role to defeat it.

Stanek points to Obama’s own campaign web site which indicates he approached the Illinois Planned Parenthood affiliate to develop a strategy to defeat that measure and the ban on partial-birth abortions.

Despite Obama’s claims, Stanek says Obama ultimately voted in 2003 against a version of the bill identical to a Congressional anti-infanticide bill the Senate approved on a 98-0 margin and on which the pro-abortion group NARAL took no position.

“He then purported several times, as recently as August 16, 2008, that the bills were not identical and he would have supported the Illinois version had it been the same as the federal version,” she said.

Obama’s campaign finally had to recant from that position after documents from the Illinois legislature proved him wrong.

“I'm beyond disgusted that Obama continues to repeat the same lies without the mainstream media investigating and denouncing him. We'll see what tomorrow brings,” Stanek concluded.

12:02 pm October 16, 2008

Dirty old man wrote :

I want Dana Perino when Bush leaves.

About Capital Journal

Capital Journal is WSJ.com’s unique site for analysis of the political and policy maneuvering in Washington in the era of Barack Obama. It features the Capital Journal columns and occasional other postings by executive Washington editor Gerald F. Seib, and will house Political Wisdom, the Journal’s daily aggregation of the smartest political analysis from around the Internet. Also look for regular columns by Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute and occasional contributions from others.